Appellant prevails in Ex parte Halstead
A footnote indicates that the Examiner cited the wrong part of 35 USC 102:
The Examiner rejects claims 20-25 and 32-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (Ans. 3-4). We note, however, the priority date of the present invention is November 30, 2001 – the filing date is November 7, 2005 claiming priority to U.S. 09/998,683 filed November 30, 2001. Ofek issued November 25, 2003 with a priority date of June 21, 2000. Thus, the proper ground of rejection is 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). We find this typographical error to be harmless and correct the ground of rejection to clarify the record.
The examiner's rejection was reversed
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude that Ofek fails to disclose the recited features of Appellants’ claim 20, and the rejection of claim 20 fails to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Appellants’ independent claim 32 includes limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 21-25 and 33-37 depend on and stand with claims 20 and 32, respectively.